1. science
2. ecology
3. pollution

The City of Austin
State of Our
Environment
Report
2014
Prepared for
City Council Mayor
Steve Adler
Mayor Pro Tem
Kathie Tovo, District 9
Council Members
Ora Houston, District 1
Delia Garza, District 2
Sabino “Pio” Renteria, District 3
Gregorio “Greg” Casar, District 4
Ann Kitchen, District 5
Don Zimmerman, District 6
Leslie Pool, District 7
Ellen Troxclair, District 8
Sheri Gallo, District 10
City Manager
Marc Ott
Prepared by
Chuck Lesniak, Environmental Officer
Watershed Protection Department
April 2015
With special thanks to the following people for their help in creating this report:
Austin Transportation
Pharr Andrews
Cari Buetow
Austin Water
Tina Bui
Sherri Kuhl
Amanda Ross
Kevin Thuesen
Watershed Protection
Brent Bellinger
Nathan Bendik
Mary-Love Bigony
Andrew Clamann
Jessica Coronado
Nico Hauwert
Chris Herrington
Aaron Hicks
David Johns
Kristin Pipkin
Abel Porras
Aaron Richter
Mateo Scoggins
Jessica Wilson
Erin Wood
Office of Sustainability
Lucia Athens
Zach Baumer
Amy Petri
Planning and Development Review
Leah Haynie
Daniel Krenzelok
Keith Mars
Jason Traweek
Cover Photo
Marc Opperman
State of Our Environment Report 2014
Table of Contents
Resources ....................................................................................
4
Foreword ...........................……………………….…....................…………
5
Creeks ……………………………………………..………….........................…….
6
Lakes and Rivers ……………………………………........……….....................
9
Aquifers …………………………………………………….........................…..….
12
Urban Forest ………………………………………………..........................…...
15
Open Space and Habitat …………………………………............................ 18
Air Quality ………………………………………………...................................
21
3
State of Our Environment Report 2014
Resources
Environmental Portal
www.austintexas.gov/environment
•Energy
•Green Building
•Zero Waste
•Water
•Climate Protection
•Nature
•Get Involved
Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan
www.austintexas.gov/imagineaustin
4
Sustainability Portal
www.austintexas.gov/sustainability
What is Sustainability?
Sustainability means finding a balance
among three sets of goals:
1. Prosperity and jobs
2. Conservation and the environment
3. Community health, equity, and cultural vitality.
It means taking positive, proactive steps to
protect quality of life now, and for future
generations.
Foreword
2014 State of the Environment Report – Climate Intro
The State of the Environment Report provides details about the condition of many different aspects of our environment, as well as efforts to protect it. As the climate in Texas has begun changing, it has
contributed to various environmental impacts such as:
• During the summer of 2011, Austin had 90 days with temperatures
of at least 100⁰F.
• The entire region is in the midst of a hydrologically unprecedented
drought that has severely depleted our sole water source.
• Wildfires destroyed homes and 32,000 acres of forest surrounding
Bastrop in 2011.
• The Halloween flood of 2013 caused extensive damage to homes
and businesses around Onion Creek and displaced many residents.
These and other changes are consistent with trends across the United States and around the world that have been attributed to humaninduced climate change.
Earlier this year, the Office of Sustainability hired ATMOS Research,
led by renowned climate scientist Dr. Katherine Hayhoe from Texas
Tech University, to conduct climate modeling for Central Texas using
the same methodology used in the 2014 National Climate Assessment. A summary of the results follows:
• Increases in annual and seasonal average temperatures, with more
days over 100⁰F and more nights over 80⁰F
• More frequent high temperature extremes of over 110⁰F
• Little change in annual average precipitation, but more frequent extreme precipitation, with more days of 2 inches or more in rainfall
and increased durations of extreme rainfall
• A slight increase in the number of dry days per year
• Persistent drought conditions in summer due to hotter weather
These changes have the potential to negatively impact our environment in the following ways:
• Vegetation, tree and ecosystem loss
• Groundwater and surface water quality impacts caused by diminished stream, spring and river flows or increased debris from
flooding
• Decreased water supply availability
• Reduced air quality with associated negative health effects
The City of Austin is moving in the right direction with many plans
underway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality,
increase water efficiency and expand use of reclaimed water, protect
and maintain Austin’s urban forest, and reduce the threats posed by
wildfires and floods. The State of the Environment Report is a critical
means of tracking our progress, and I applaud the ongoing efforts of
City staff experts to report this important information.
Lucia Athens, Chief Sustainability Officer
Welcome to the State of Our Environment Report for the year
2014! Once again much of the public discussion about the environment has been centered on how much water we have today and
how much we’ll have tomorrow. While Austin had more of a normal rainfall year the Highland Lakes remained at or near historic
lows and water availability is critical to the health of streams, lakes,
springs, and aquifers as well as our region’s economic health. So
while much of our environmental focus is often on water quality we
also need a strong focus on water quantity as well.
In these pages I think you’ll see that the City of Austin has been very
busy working to improve our local creeks with restoration projects
that range from large like the Shoal Creek/Pease Park project to
small, such as neighborhood scale stream riparian restoration. This
work is improving the water quality and quantity in these creeks
as well as improving the aesthetics and public enjoyment of these
areas.
The report also covers air quality, sustainability, and many other environmental issues important to Austinites. I encourage you to take
advantage of the many links to reports, studies, and other detailed
information that will enable you to “drill” down into the broader discussions contained in the report.
This is your City and your environment. Take a few minutes to learn
more about it and how your tax dollars are working for you to make
Austin’s environment healthy and vibrant.
Chuck Lesniak, Environmental Officer
5
State of Our Environment Report 2014
Creeks
Importance
Creeks flow into our drinking water reservoirs, are critical
habitat for aquatic life, and provide recreational opportunities for people. The health of Austin’s creeks and the
riparian areas adjacent to them is a direct measure of our
success in managing land resources and protecting the
environmental health of our community.
Goals
One of the City’s broad environmental goals is to protect
and improve the quality of water in our creeks. A specific
goal of the Watershed Protection Department is to maintain or achieve Environmental Integrity Index scores of
“good” or better in all monitored creeks.
Imagine Austin
Policies
•Protect and improve the water quality of the city’s
creeks, lakes, and aquifers for use and the support of
aquatic life.
•Reduce pollution in all creeks from stormwater runoff,
overflow, and other non-point sources.
•Enhance the protection of creeks and floodplains to preserve environmentally sensitive areas and improve the
quality of water entering the Colorado River through
regional planning and improved coordination.
Priority Actions
•Restore trees and vegetation along degraded waterways, especially in eastern watersheds.
•Incentivize and promote low-impact development
designs and techniques on private land that preserve
key environmental features, reduce runoff and the use
of potable water for plantings, and increase stormwater
infiltration.
Challenges and Responses
Ongoing
Encroachment by development, loss of bank vegetation,
increased impervious cover (with associated increases
in stormwater runoff), leaking wastewater infrastructure, uncollected pet waste, and improper fertilizer use
all result in degradation of water quality. These threats
can result in creeks that are not safe for human contact,
are choked with nuisance aquatic plants, have unstable
eroding stream banks, and have low dissolved oxygen
levels that negatively impact aquatic life. The Watershed
Protection Department and its partners address these
problems through a combination of solutions including
public education, regulations, programs, restoring riparian areas, controlling invasive plants, and capital improvement projects. Learn more at austintexas.gov/watershed
6
This Year
Specific City actions and challenges related to creek health
in 2014 included:
•The Watershed Protection Department held nine public
stakeholder meetings in 2014 to discuss topics related to
green stormwater infrastructure, including the beneficial use of stormwater to promote infiltration and water
conservation. Staff will conduct additional stakeholder
meetings in 2015 to evaluate and refine a draft proposal
as part of the CodeNEXT revision of the Land Development Code.
•Even highly treated wastewater causes significant
adverse water quality impacts when discharged directly
into high quality Hill Country streams west of Austin. The
City of Dripping Springs is considering a new wastewater
discharge to Onion Creek, upstream of the Barton Springs
Recharge Zone. City of Austin staff, in cooperation with
downstream landowners, are working to develop and
evaluate alternatives to a wastewater discharge that
would meet Dripping Springs’ needs to accommodate
growth while protecting the existing water quality of
Onion Creek.
Figure 1. Photos of Onion Creek near the location of the proposed
Dripping Springs wastewater discharge.
•The persistence of baseflow in creeks is a critical factor
affecting the health of Austin’s aquatic ecosystems.
Increasing impervious cover can result in larger floods
during storms and less baseflow in creeks after rainfall
ends. Watershed Protection Department staff developed a new index describing the permanence of flow in
Austin creeks based on long-term monitoring data. This
new index has already proven to be an extremely useful
tool in helping to explain observed patterns in aquatic
biological data. Read more about the index here: austintexas.gov/watershed_protection/publications/
document.cfm?id=213560
•Riparian zones are the areas of land adjacent to creeks.
When functioning properly riparian zones provide significant human health benefits, prevent erosion, and
improve water quality. The City of Austin works with
non-profit partners and citizen volunteers to restore
degraded riparian areas around Austin. More information about the benefits of healthy riparian zones with
diverse and abundant vegetation can be found in this
2014 report: austintexas.gov/watershed_protection/
publications/document.cfm?id=213558 To learn how
you can help improve Austin’s creeks, visit: austintexas.
gov/creekside
•In anticipation of the shift to geographic representation for the new City Council, the Watershed Protection Department created profiles for the ten City Council
districts in 2014. Each district profile summarizes the
characteristics of the watersheds within the district and
provides an overview of flooding, erosion, and water
quality problems. The profiles discuss past, current, and
upcoming solutions as well. The individual profiles are
supplemented by a Citywide Profile that provides a brief
introduction to Austin’s watersheds and the City’s efforts
to reduce the impacts of flooding, erosion, and water
pollution. The Citywide Profile also provides a comparison of important metrics across the ten City Council districts, including impervious cover, land use, and creek
health. Learn more about the watershed characteristics of your district here: austintexas.gov/department/
watershed-protection-council-district-profiles
•Environmental monitoring staff with the Watershed Protection Department published a number of new scientific
reports in 2014. There are now more than 415 technical
reports generated by City scientists and engineers available in our online, searchable database. Visit this website
to read more about Austin’s water resources: austintexas.gov/watershed_protection/publications/
default.cfm
Status and Trends
•Despite constantly increasing pressure from Austin’s
•Engineered structures to capture and treat stormwater
growing population, the quality of Austin’s creeks has
runoff from impervious areas are important tools Austin
not markedly declined since the inception of Austin’s
uses to protect water quality in creeks. The Waterprotective water quality ordinances. This achievement
shed Protection Department developed equations that
underscores the importance of preventative measures
relate the size of rainfall events to the concentration
in maintaining water quality. The City monitors creek
of pollutants in runoff. Read more here: austintexas.
health using the Environmental Integrity Index (EII). The
gov/watershed_protection/publications/document.
EII assesses water quality, sediment toxicity, contact
cfm?id=214826. This information was used to develop a
recreation, aquatic life, physical integrity, and aesthetnew interactive tool for engineers to use in the design of
ics through direct field sampling. Using the EII, the City
stormwater treatment facilities that protect water quality
monitors 50 watersheds across Austin on a rotating twoand comply with City of Austin regulations. For more
year cycle. EII information is used to track the long-term
information, visit: health of creeks and prioritize areas for specific projects.
austintexas.gov/department/stormwater-management
More information on the EII is available here: austintexas.gov/department/environmental-integrity-index
•The overall EII score is a comprehensive reflection of the
health of Austin’s creeks. It can be used to identify where
problems occur (Figure 4) and may be used to track the
success of Austin’s water quality protection efforts over
time (Figure 5). Approximately 55 percent of the watersheds assessed in 2013 and 2014 maintained “good” or
better overall EII scores. Most watersheds in the urban
downtown area and some watersheds in eastern Austin
yielded depressed EII scores of “fair” or “marginal”.
Figure 2. Benefits provided by riparian zones increase with width.
Figure 3. The rain garden outside of One Texas Center is an example
of an engineered water quality control.
7
Figure 5.
Change in
Environmental
Integrity Index Scores
citywide over time.
Figure 4. Current Environmental Integrity Index score by sampling
area (2013-2014).
Annual Focus
Waller Creek runs through the oldest and arguably most
famous parts of Austin, including the University of Texas
and downtown Austin. It is the poster child for urban creek
degradation and is at the same time venerated and infamous, a place where citizens and visitors to Austin might
have their best and worst memories. It is also prime real
estate, and after decades of political and environmental
pressure, is currently undergoing a radical transformation.
Through a combination of a massive flood bypass tunnel
($150 million) and a comprehensive surface corridor restoration ($50+ million in future spending), lower Waller
Creek — 1.5 miles from the mouth at Lady Bird Lake to
Waterloo Park — is getting a lot of attention.
First proposed in the 1980s and the subject of rigorous planning and design, the Waller Creek Tunnel broke
ground in 2011, followed by the formation of the Waller
Creek Conservancy (WCC) that same year. The synergy of
the Watershed Protection Department and the WCC in
moving the larger vision of Lower Waller Creek into the
public eye has been notable, resulting in a design competition that secured Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates
as lead architects for the surface expression of the Lower
Waller District.
8
The initial (Creek Corridor Framework) phase of the
Waller Creek District restoration project will be completed
in May 2015. The Creek Corridor Framework will provide
schematic level drawings for the public infrastructure
improvements in the District. Most design attention will
be placed on the “String of Parks” that defines the public
interaction spaces, but the trail that integrates the entire
corridor has been a major focus to date. The plan’s stream
restoration components include extensive aquatic habitat
and floodplain connectivity as well as riparian and stormwater treatments throughout the entire district (Figure 6)
The collaboration between the City of Austin, the Waller
Creek Conservancy, and the community along Lower
Waller Creek has the ability to change the way Austin
thinks of urban creeks and may well be the best example
we have yet of bringing together environmental, commercial, and design excellence.
Figure 6. A cross section demonstrating the Waller District design
approach, which includes instream habitat improvements, green
stormwater methods, riparian restoration integrated with public
access, and educational opportunities.
State of Our Environment Report 2014
Lakes and Rivers
Importance
Austin has four lakes—Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, Lake
Travis, and Lake Walter E. Long (also known as Decker
Lake). All of the lakes are located along or drain to the
Colorado River, which continues free-flowing downstream
of Longhorn Dam in East Austin. Lake Austin has been the
sole source of drinking water for Austin. However, a new
water treatment plant was completed in 2014 that withdraws water from Lake Travis. All of the lakes in the Austin
area are regionally important recreation resources and
provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife. Lake Long also
provides cooling water for an Austin Energy power plant.
The lakes are the primary receiving waters for stormwater
runoff from urban areas, and pollutants can collect in lake
sediments for long periods of time.
Goals
The Watershed Protection Department’s three main
goals for lakes are to maintain water quality, manage invasive plants, and control the amount of trash. Specifically, Austin Lake Index scores should be “good” (64) or
higher and invasive plants should not impair recreation.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
surface water quality standards for the Colorado River
downstream from Longhorn Dam establish an “exceptional” aquatic life use for the river, meaning the aquatic
system has the capability to support a highly diverse and
abundant assemblage of fish and other aquatic life.
Imagine Austin
Policies
•Protect and improve the water quality of the city’s
creeks, lakes, and aquifers for use and the support of
aquatic life.
•Protect the public water supply and the health and safety of users.
Figure 1.
Acres of Lake Austin covered
by the invasive Hydrilla plant
and number of Asian grass carp
added to eat the plant over time.
•Foster the use of creeks and lakes for public recreation
and enjoyment in a manner that maintains their natural
character.
•Plan for and adapt to increased drought, severe weather, and other potential impacts of climate change on the
water supply.
Challenges and Responses
Ongoing
Increasing nutrient concentrations change the composition
and quantity of nuisance algae. As algae increase, lakes become less clear and dissolved oxygen can be reduced. This
places stress on aquatic life and can increase water treatment costs. In Lake Long, wastewater effluent treated by
Austin Water may also increase algae because the intake
to fill the lake from the Colorado River is 2.5 miles downstream of the wastewater treatment plant outfall.
In addition to algae, invasive aquatic plants, toxic pollutants, and trash are ongoing problems. Invasive vegetation
alters natural habitat and reduces recreational opportunities. Toxic pollutants can accumulate in sediments at
the bottom of the lakes. The City collects more than 100
tons of trash and debris each year from Lady Bird Lake.
Drought negatively impacts the lakes, reducing the flow
through the lake and increasing temperatures. Drought
may result in increased aquatic plant growth, which also
negatively impacts recreation.
This Year
• Hydrilla is a rapidly growing
invasive aquatic plant that is
managed with lake drawdowns
and stocking of sterile Asian
grass carp, which preferentially eat Hydrilla. In 2012, Hydrilla
reached a historic high, covering more than 580 acres of
Lake Austin. In August 2013, an
additional 9,000 sterile Asian
grass carp were added to the
lake. No Hydrilla was observed
during the September 2013
Texas Parks and Wildlife survey
of Lake Austin. Although Hydrilla will return, stocking appropriate rates of grass carp
has now been demonstrated to
be a successful control strategy
(Figure 1). For more information on Hydrilla infestation on
Lake Austin, visit www.austintexas.gov/ hydrilla
9
•Extreme drought continues to impact
the quality and quantity of water in area
lakes (see annual focus for more information about the drought). The Lower Colorado River Authority continued to curtail
the amount of water released from Austin’s lakes for downstream agricultural
uses in order to protect Austin’s drinking
water supply. The low flow through Lake
Austin contributes to increases in the frequency of blooms of microscopic algae,
which contribute to unpleasant taste
and odor in drinking water. Record number of days with blooms of microscopic
blue-green plankton (also known as cyanobacteria) in Lake Austin continued to
be observed in 2014, which was the second-worst year since observations began
in 1992 (Figure 2).
•A lack of rooted aquatic plants, also known
as macrophytes, in Lake Austin has temporarily impacted the fishery in the lake,
resulting in some “skinny” largemouth
bass (Figure 3a). Grass carp have eaten
most of the macrophytes, reducing habi- Figure 2. Number of days in which microscopic nuisance blue-green algae blooms
tat and food for other fish. As the grass occurred in Lake Austin by year.
carp die naturally, aquatic plants will return and the fishery will be restored. Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) conducted a survey and scored 114 bass in 2014.
The average score was 82 out of 100 possible points for the lake. Values between 75 and 95 are acceptable and TPWD
has set 85 as their target benchmark. The minimal amount of vegetation has also resulted in bass being more widely
disbursed throughout the entire lake making them harder to catch, rather than being concentrated in the upper reaches
as has been observed previously. Fish in Lady Bird Lake do not appear to be similarly affected (Figure 3b), and a healthy
population of native aquatic plants continues to be observed.
•In response to the Lake Austin Task Force, the Austin City
Council adopted new regulations for development and
boat docks on Lake Austin to address the continuing increase in the frequency and complexity of lakeshore development (Figure 4). These regulations include several
new provisions to protect the lake’s shoreline. A new zoning overlay was also created to limit development from
encroaching too close to the lakeshore. The Watershed
Protection Department has hired a new Environmental Program Coordinator to coordinate management of
the lake and help respond to citizen questions. Learn
more about the code amendments that were adopted
in June 2014 here: www.austintexas.gov/department/
lake-austin-development-code-revisions
Figure 3. (a) “Skinny” largemouth bass caught in Lake Austin.
(b) Massive freshwater drum fish caught in Lady Bird Lake.
• The Watershed Protection Department installed 2,140
feet of coir logs along the shoreline of Lake Austin at
publicly-managed properties. Made from natural coconut husk fibers, the coir logs hold sediment in place
and allow native plants to grow, protecting the shoreline
from erosion as a result of excessive boat waves and improving water clarity (Figure 5). The coir logs will slowly
biodegrade but the plants will remain as a permanent
natural shoreline protection. After five years of monitoring, a pilot study initiated in 2009 has shown coir logs to
Figure 4. Example of intense development along the shoreline of Lake Austin
10
be extremely effective to not only dissipate energy from
boat waves and thus prevent erosion, but also to actually
regain shoreline previously lost from wave action. Learn
more here: austintexas.gov/content/1361/FAQ/31165
Figure 5. (a) Coir log and plants after initial installation in Lake
Austin. (b) Same location five years later with abundant plants and
restored shoreline.
Status and Trends
Since 2010, three area lakes have been monitored as part
of Austin’s Lake Index (ALI). The ALI includes annual monitoring and assessment of aquatic habitat, insects, water
quality, sediment quality, invasive vegetation, and floating
algae. Higher ALI scores indicate better water quality. All
three lakes yielded lower ALI scores in 2014 than in 2013
and scored in the “fair” range (Figure 6), most likely due
to the ongoing extreme drought (see annual focus). Read
more about the specific water quality issues affecting the
ALI score for Austin lakes at: austintexas.gov/austinlakes
Annual Focus
Despite sporadic heavy rainstorms in the Austin area in 2014,
Central Texas continues to endure an extreme drought rivaling
the worst in the state’s recorded history. Inflows to lakes Travis
and Buchanan, our region’s water supply reservoirs, have been
at record lows. In early April 2015, the lakes combined were 37
percent full.
For the vast majority of time since September 2011, Austin has
been in one-day-per-week watering restrictions through the
implementation of Stage 2 of its Drought Contingency Plan.
These drought response efforts and on-going water conservation
programs have saved a total of at least 160,000 acre-feet of water
since September 2011.
In Summer 2014, the City Council-appointed Austin Water
Resource Planning Task Force recommended a variety of
demand- and supply-side strategies, and development of an integrated water resources plan. Project planning for the integrated
water resources plan and implementation of the recommendations is underway. This includes implementation of demand-side
strategies that enhance watering restrictions and conservation
regulations, and the creation of a new staff team to bolster leak
detection efforts. On the supply side, work has been completed
on short-term strategies that enhance efficiency by improving the
strategic operations of Lake Long and the Longhorn Dam gates.
Work is also underway to prepare for public outreach to discuss
possible variation in the level of Lake Austin in non-peak recreational months if combined storage in lakes Travis and Buchanan
falls below 600,000 acre-feet so water can be captured in rain
events.
Feasibility and engineering analyses for four supply-side strategies recommended by the Task Force for implementation and/or
further study have begun, and are estimated to be complete in
2015. The four projects being studied in these analyses are:
• Potential use of Walter E. Long Lake (Decker Lake) as enhanced
off-channel storage for water supply augmentation.
• Installation of a floating pump intake barge below Tom Miller
Dam and a transmission main to pump water from Lady Bird
Lake into the Ullrich Water Treatment Plant to allow the capture of inflows into Lady Bird Lake when not required for use
downstream.
• An indirect potable reuse project whereby a
portion of the effluent from the South Austin
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SAR)
would be discharged into Lady Bird Lake to
then be withdrawn via the intake barge mentioned above. The Task Force recommended this be considered for deep emergency
drought conditions of 400,000 acre feet or
less of combined storage.
• The spreading of treated wastewater from
SAR into an infiltration basin. Water would
then recharge into the Colorado Alluvium and
be recaptured in alluvial wells along the river
to be pumped to the water treatment plant.
Learn more about the drought at
www.austintexas. gov/department/
drought-update.
Figure 6. Overall lake index scores for Lake
Austin, Lake Long, and Lady Bird Lake from
years 2010 through 2014. 100 is the best
score and 0 is the worst. The ALI goal is to
score 64 or better.
11
State of Our Environment Report 2014
Aquifers
Importance
The Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer is the
sole source of drinking water for approximately 60,000
Central Texans. It also provides flow at Barton Springs, which
is critical to the habitat of the endangered Barton Springs
and Austin Blind Salamanders. Barton Springs is also an
iconic recreational resource for Austin, drawing hundreds
of thousands of visitors annually and providing more than
$1.5 million in revenue for the Austin Parks and Recreation
Department. In northern Austin, small springs discharging
from the Northern Edwards Aquifer provide critical habitat
for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander, designated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as a threatened species.
Goals
The principal goal of the Watershed Protection Department
for the Edwards Aquifer is to preserve the integrity of the
contributing and recharge zones in order to protect water
quality and aquifer recharge and to maintain habitat for
endangered salamander populations.
Imagine Austin
Policies
•Protect and improve the water quality of the city’s
creeks, lakes, and aquifers for use and the support of
aquatic life.
•Maintain or enhance the existing rate of recharge in the
Edwards Aquifer.
•Conserve Austin’s natural resources systems by limiting
development in sensitive environmental areas, including
the Edwards Aquifer, its contributing and r e c h a r g e
zones, and endangered species habitat.
Priority Action
•Expand and strengthen water quality regulations to
achieve non-degradation and protect recharge zones,
floodplains, creeks and their headwaters, and other environmentally sensitive areas, including increased buffers and setbacks, restricted land uses with significant
spill risks in sensitive environmental areas, and changes
in allowed impervious cover.
Challenges and Responses
Ongoing
Aquatic salamanders require adequate levels of dissolved
oxygen to survive and thrive. Pumping from the aquifer
reduces flow and dissolved oxygen in Barton Springs,
especially during drought. Development over the aquifer’s
recharge and contributing zones threatens the quality of
water recharging the aquifer, which may in turn negatively
affect salamanders.
Barton Springs flow and dissolved oxygen directly affect
the habitat and populations of the Barton Springs
Salamander and the Austin Blind Salamander. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations less than 5 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) are of particular concern. When Barton Springs
flow is less than 40 cubic feet per second, significant water
quality changes become evident. When flow is below 30
cubic feet per second, Barton Springs salamanders are
negatively affected by the
decrease in dissolved oxygen
(Figure 1).
This Year
• The Jollyville Transmission
Main, constructed to carry
water from the new water
treatment plant near Lake
Travis to the reservoir at
Hwy 183 and McNeil Road,
was completed in summer
2014. Excavation of the
6.6-mile-long tunnel and
four associated shafts was
closely monitored due to
the proximity of springs
and the threatened Jollyville Plateau Salamander.
No significant environment impacts were identified during extensive
Figure 1. Barton Springs flow
and dissolved oxygen over time.
12
Figure 2. Schematic design of the new Eliza Spring stream through the
Barton Springs grounds on the north side near the concession area.
•monitoring. The shaft backfill included low-permeability layers to help preserve groundwater flow paths. Postconstruction monitoring will be complete in spring 2015.
Learn more at: www.austintexas.gov/department/
water-treatment-plant-4
•SH 45 Southwest is proposed to cross over one of the
longest and deepest Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan federal permit caves, Flint Ridge Cave. In order
to better understand how surface water reaches cave
drips, which the cave ecosystem relies on, a subsurface
study of Flint Ridge was initiated in February 2014 by the
Watershed Protection Department with funding from
Austin Transportation Department and assistance from
Austin Water’s Wildland Conservation Division. Monitoring stations set up in Flint Ridge and Tabor Crevice
Caves will help determine if surface features are source
areas for the cave drips and if the highway ROW is within
the area contributing to the cave drips. A report is expected to be completed by summer 2015.
•Two dye traces were conducted in 2014 on the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve to document water sources for springs containing the threatened Jollyville
Plateau Salamander. In both cases, dyes were poured
into creek water where creek flow ceased up to 1,000
feet upstream of springs. Dyes were detected in the
springs within hours of dye entering the creeks. This
documented that the water source for these springs is
surface water, partly originating in developed uplands
at the top of the canyons, which flows into the canyons,
sinks underground, and flows through shallow alluvial
sediment to re-emerge in the springs. This result illustrates the need for water quality protection to preserve
these unique ecosystems.
•In December 2014, the Austin City Council approved
purchase of a 49-acre tract of land south of the Lady
Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. This tract is located
along the proposed SH 45 Southwest roadway and
represents a significant missing link in the existing
land holdings of the Water Quality Protection Lands
(WQPL). This property is an undeveloped oak/juniper
woodland with several known caves that will now be
protected in perpetuity to benefit Barton Springs. The
purchase of this tract exhausts all of the remaining
open space bond funding available. www.austintexas.
gov/department/water-quality-protection-land
•The City of Austin initiated a capital project in 2013
to increase the amount of Barton Springs Salamander
habitat by daylighting the outlet pipe from Eliza Spring.
The current outlet pipe, which flows from Eliza Spring
into the Barton Springs bypass tunnel, is collapsing and
infiltrated by tree roots. The project will permanently uncover and remove the pipe located on the north
side of Barton Springs Pool. The design for the new
stream was completed in 2014 (Figure 2), and the project is planned to start construction in fall 2015. Learn
more about the project here: www.austintexas.gov/
department/eliza-spring-daylighting
•For the first time, Watershed Protection Department
biologists began photographically identifying all individual Barton Springs Salamanders at Eliza Spring in
2014. Color patterns on their heads enable tracking
individual salamanders over time (Figure 3). Initial results indicate that salamanders may move from surface habitat into and out of subsurface habitat within
the aquifer much more frequently than previously assumed, perhaps even on a daily basis.
Status and Trends
The City, in cooperation with the United States Geological
Survey (USGS), monitors the flow of Barton Springs using
automated instruments that take measurements every
15 minutes. Since monitoring began in 1978, the average daily discharge is 62 cubic feet per second (cfs) with a
maximum estimated discharge in December 1991 of 130
cfs following heavy winter rains and a minimum discharge
of 13 cfs during the drought of 2009. Flows at Barton
Springs are still driven primarily by rainfall, but pumping of
water from the aquifer negatively impacts Barton Springs
flow. Measurement of spring discharge assists in endangered species management at Barton Springs Pool and is
used by the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation
District to help determine drought status. Access data
from the USGS here:
waterdata.usgs.gov/tx/nwis/
inventory/?site_no=08155500&agency_cd=USGS&
Figure 3. Close-up of color patterns on the head of a Barton Springs
Salamander from Eliza Spring.
13
Figure 4. Barton Springs Salamander counts
from Barton Springs Pool, Eliza Spring, Old
Mill Spring, and Upper Barton Springs. Upper
Barton Spring was dry for most of 2013.
The City also closely monitors the water quality of Barton
Springs, as well as habitat conditions and populations of the
Barton Springs Salamander and the Austin Blind Salamander.
Due to City efforts to protect and improve habitat, the population of the Barton Springs Salamander has significantly
improved since it was listed as an endangered species in 1997.
Low counts of Barton Springs Salamanders in surface habitats
relative to historic highs were observed again in 2014 (Figure 4).
Jollyville Plateau Salamander population counts at the surface
springs in northern Austin are a direct representation of the
health of the species and are strongly affected by the flow of
the springs in which they live. Many springs in the Bull Creek
watershed stopped flowing in 2011 because of the extreme
drought, although salamander populations increased through
2014 with the return of springflow as a result of localized
rainfall (Figure 5). Learn more about salamander protection
efforts: austintexas.gov/department/salamanders
14
Annual Focus
The Blowing Sink Research Management
Area is a City of Austin nature preserve
that is part of the Balcones Canyonlands
Conservation Plan (BCCP) for the preservation of rare cave species. The site contains
five significant caves. Blowing Sink Cave can
be traversed more than 240 feet deep to the
water table of the Edwards Aquifer where
rare aquatic life is found. The Blowing Sink
tract also recharges a tremendous amount
of water for the aquifer, which can arrive at
Barton Springs within two days with little
natural filtration. The site was acquired
by the City of Austin in 2000. Old wooden
structures around the cave openings rotted
over time and allowed sediment to be
transported into the cave openings, causing
a public safety threat, damaging city lands,
and obstructing recharge to the aquifer.
In 2013, a project by the Watershed Protection Department
began to restore these karst features. The project was also supported by preserve management staff, rangers, and foresters
from Parks and Recreation, Balcones Canyonlands Preserve
staff from Austin Water, and geotechnical and structural engineers from the Public Works Department.
A team of cave specialists manually excavated sediment from
the five caves. Beginning in November 2013, contractors excavated the sinkhole entrances for the caves and constructed
concrete chimneys to keep sediment and people out of the
caves.
In October 2014 the caves were secured with gates and
Watershed Protection Field Operations staff backfilled the
sinks with coarse rock filter media. Landscape restoration and
fencing will complete the project.
Figure 5. Jollyville Plateau Salamander population counts at one representative Bull
Creek monitoring site. The site is divided into multiple sections when conducting
population surveys. Data from the fourth survey of 2014 is still being processed.
Figure 3. (a) Brian Cowan, geologist for Zara
Environmental documenting Sinky Dinky Cave
in 2012. Unstable sediment collapsed into the
20-foot-deep cave presenting a public safety
threat.(b) Sinky Dink Cave in October 2014 after
restoration, but prior to landscape revegetation
State of Our Environment Report 2014
Urban Forest
Importance
Austin’s urban forest provides social, ecological, and economic benefits to the community and enhances the quality of life for Austin residents. Recognizing Austin’s urban
forest as an asset and an important part of the City’s infrastructure, City policy and practices aim to preserve,
maintain, and replace individual trees with the goal of a
sustainable urban forest. A thriving, healthy urban forest is a reflection of the City’s ability to preserve individual trees and vegetation communities, restore or repair
degraded lands, protect lands for their environmental
services, manage and educate about tree diseases, encourage the removal of non-native, invasive species, and
replant trees and vegetation.
Goals
The primary goals for the City’s urban forest management
are to (1) ensure public well-being and safety; and (2) enhance the benefits of the urban forest through preservation, care, maintenance, and replenishment of the urban
forest. The Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan serves as
the guide for making Austin vibrant, livable, and connected with the urban forest.
Imagine Austin
Policies
•Maintain and increase Austin’s urban forest as a key
component of the green infrastructure network.
•Integrate green infrastructure elements such as the
urban forest, gardens, green buildings, stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities, and green streets into the
urban design of the city through “green” development
practices and regulations.
Priority Action
•Create an urban forest plan that identifies tree canopy
goals, establishes a budget, and presents implementation measures.
Resources:
City of Austin Tree Portal:
www.austintexas.gov/treeportal
City Arborist:
www.austintexas.gov/trees
Urban Forestry Program website: www.austinurbanforestry.org
Challenges and Responses
Ongoing
Austin’s urban forest is increasingly challenged by a changing climate, development pressure and changing land use
patterns as well as urban stressors such as soil compaction, invasive species, and competition for space. Interdepartmental coordination, tree preservation regulations,
comprehensive planning, and communication with the
community regarding tree regulation and management are
areas of continued focus.
Figure 1. Policy element categories from Austin’s Urban Forest, A
Master Plan for Public Property.
This Year
•The City of Austin received a Tree City USA designation
for the 22nd straight year by the Arbor Day Foundation
and a ‘growth’ award for going above and beyond.
•As part of Land Use Review, staff reviewed 372 commercial site plans and 243 subdivisions, 2,916 tree permits, and averaged more than 490 tree inspections per
month.
•340 commercial and parkland site plans were reviewed
for impacts to public trees, and more than 4,700 work
orders were completed.
•Staff reviewed 847 tree permits for heritage trees and
more than 111 site plans and 41 subdivision plans for
compliance with the heritage tree ordinance. Greater
than 95 percent of all healthy heritage trees were preserved in the development review process.
•City Arborist grant program issued $124,554 for tree
care, oak wilt treatment, tree planting, urban forest
planning, and tree transplanting.
•Staff performed a soil volume study to improve growing
conditions for urban trees.
•Austin Urban Forest Plan: A Master Plan for Public Property was adopted by Austin City Council on March 6,
2014. Implementation of the Plan is in progress, including development of Austin-specific Standards of Care for
15
trees and vegetation, Departmental Plans, and an Urban
Forest Report Card.
•A Gap Analysis of the public urban forest was completed per City Council Resolution 20130627-070 on July 16,
2014. The Level of Service (LOS) Gap was identified as
$12.6 million with a directive to create a plan to close
the LOS Gap in five years. To increase effectiveness of
the City Manager-appointed and Code-Mandated position, the Urban Forester and staff were transferred to
the Planning and Development Review Department.
•1,736 trees were removed from public property, but
with the help of nonprofit partners and more than 2,682
volunteer hours, 6,251 containerized trees and 9,443
seedlings were planted.
•The Cemetery Master Plan includes a comprehensive
tree inventory for all City-owned cemeteries. PARD
Urban Forestry Program began a phased removal of
dead trees and implementation of tree planting, care,
and maintenance plans for each cemetery.
•There is continued support of green infrastructure education efforts including the Urban Forest Stewards
training, The Treebune, a monthly newsletter with 889
subscribers, and a Grow Green informational video series on tree care and maintenance. Planting programs
include annual park plantings, Austin’s Arbor Day, Austin Community Trees, NeighborWoods, and Grow Zones
(riparian seedling plantings).
•The City’s first proactive tree maintenance program was
established as a result of Council’s budget increase for
the Urban Forestry Program in 2013. Preventative tree
care is prioritized in order to reduce dead or high-risk
trees that pose a public safety risk on parkland. More
than 16 parks have received proactive treatment to date.
•The Urban Forestry Program facilitated more than
$370,364 in funding (or equivalent) from donations, volunteer work days, and community partnerships, including $142,260 in donations of tree care.
•Urban Forestry and City Arborist program collaborated
to train 198 Parks and Recreation staff on tree protection during their daily work. There was a 91.4% increase
in knowledge surveyed.
•The Community Wildfire Protection Plan was adopted by
City Council in October of 2014. Implementation of priority recommendations are being undertaken through a
City of Austin - Travis County Wildfire Coalition.
Interdepartmental
Coordination between departments continues through the
Interdepartmental Tree Working Group and the Imagine
Austin Green Infrastructure Priority Program. Related interdepartmental working groups include Green Streets, Public
Land Management, and CodeNext.
Figure 2. Tree permit data for 2014.
Status and Trends
Development activity has increased for all tree-related permitting. Single-family home development, multi-family,
and commercial development have all increased on an annual basis since 2010.
An iTree Eco assessment (software provided by U.S. Forest
Service) was used to evaluate the economic and ecological
benefits of Austin’s public trees. The assessment resulted
in an estimate of more than 7 million trees on public property with 38% canopy cover and an annual value exceeding
$10.6 million each year, including:
16
•Pollution removal: 781 metric tons/year ($4.17 million/year);
•Carbon storage in existing trees: 467,000 metric tons
($36.7 million);
•Avoided runoff: 1,105,000 cubic meters/year;
•Building energy savings: $721 thousand/year; and
•Avoided carbon emissions: $97.2 thousand/year.
The Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis (UFIA) Program of
the U.S. Forest Service completed Austin’s data collection
in summer 2014 for public and private property. The final
report is due in spring 2015.
Figure 3. City of Austin Tree
Planting Prioritization Map.
Annual Focus
The Urban Forestry Program’s Tree Planting Prioritization
serves as a decision support tool for prioritizing tree planting areas citywide. The tool uses Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) and various datasets to identify which areas
should theoretically receive tree plantings in the near future. The prioritization provides a tree-centric roadmap for
furthering Imagine Austin’s core principle to “integrate nature into the city” and supports implementation policies
adopted in the Austin Urban Forest Plan.
Prioritization is based on the following eight broad categories:
1) public health and safety, 2) air quality, 3) environmental
justice, 4) water quality, 5) critical places, 6) forest replenishment, 7) forest preservation and development impacts,
and 8) urban heat island. These eight categories were determined by programmatic interests and academic research.
Within each category exists a set of individual factors (31
total) to determine where the City should plant trees. In the
following map, U.S. Census tracts are scored based on planting factors like population density, available planting space,
and presence of existing tree canopy. Parks and other public
spaces are then chosen for planting based on their priority
score, public demand, and local knowledge.
17
State of Our Environment Report 2014
Open Space and Habitat
Importance
Austin Water’s Wildland Conservation Division (referred
to as Wildland) manages natural areas to improve our
water quantity and quality, endangered species habitat,
and quality of life. Continued growth is in Austin’s future,
and the City is carefully planning to help preserve clean
air, clean water, and natural areas through Wildland.
Goals
The Wildland Division encompasses two programs:
Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) and Water Quality
Protection Lands (WQPL). The primary goal of the BCP is
to protect and enhance the habitat of endangered and
rare species as mitigation for development in western
Travis County. WQPL’s goal is to produce the optimal level
of high quality water to recharge the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer by managing protected land
to restore prairie-savanna ecosystems and healthy riparian corridors.
Imagine Austin
Vision
•Our open spaces and preserves shape city planning,
reduce infrastructure costs, and provide us with recreation, clean air and water, local food, cooler temperatures, and biodiversity.
Policies
•Permanently preserve areas of greatest environmental
and agricultural value.
•Expand the amount of permanently protected natural and environmentally sensitive areas for use as open
space and passive recreational areas.
Priority Action
•Expand the City of Austin’s acquisition of environmentally significant land, conservation easements, and/or
development rights for the protection of sensitive areas,
including floodplains, riparian areas, wetlands, prairies,
land the supports recharge of the Edwards Aquifer, wildlife habitat and corridors, bottomland forests and priority woodlands, critical environmental features, and
agricultural land.
Challenges and Responses
Ongoing
While Austin’s Wildland appears to be left alone, they are
in fact managed to achieve specific, mandated goals for
the property. These undeveloped lands function every
day to provide clean and needed water for our community, provide habitat for endangered wildlife, and enhance
air quality
18
Wildland Conservation Division Status*
275 perimeter miles
41,909 total acres
28,309 acres of Water Quality Protection Lands (WQPL)
13,600 acres of Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP)
* including conservation easements and dual managed tracts
This Year
•Wildland properties include more than 13 miles of trails.
An interactive map added online this year allows the public to enjoy access to these lands. Guided hikes are offered
on many of the properties without public access. Visit:
austintexas.gov/department/wildland-maps
Endangered species monitoring included banding 152
golden-cheeked warblers of which 28 were nestling or
chicks in the fourth year of an intensive monitoring study.
Status and Trends
In the early 1990s development in the Austin area was
stalled due to the federal regulations guarding the habitat
of the newly-listed endangered species. The creation of
the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP) and
system of preserves it created, Balcones Canyonlands
Preserve (BCP), is a locally implemented solution to
federal regulation. This was the first multi-regional, multispecies permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Today 297 private property owners have been able to
develop 14,532 acres of real property in Austin and Travis
County through an easy, cost effective mitigation solution
by participating in the BCCP. Those improvements carry
an assessed value of $4.5 billion that contribute to city
and county taxes.
The BCCP is a major
economic engine in our
community. It assures
we are conserving
endangered and
threatened species
and their habitat while
we support delivery
of valuable ecosystem
services that make our
communities livable.
19
Annual Focus
Over the past year, the City has invested nearly all of
the $30 million from the 2012 bond approved by voters
for open space acquisition through additions to Austin’s
Water Quality Protection Lands. One of these additions
is especially critical because it eliminated 1,000 proposed
homes and associated wastewater effluent irrigation —
the first such proposal at this scale over the Recharge Zone
— greatly benefitting the Edwards Aquifer and Barton
Springs by removing potential sources of pollutants. The
Avaña acquisition, while only 86 acres, was notable for
protecting an important stretch of Bear Creek over the
recharge zone. Another addition to the WQPL, Ruby Ranch
conservation easement, protects Austin’s natural heritage
by protecting a working ranch, preserving agricultural
uses and significant natural areas, preserving open space,
and maintaining and enhancing water quality.
Collectively the Water Quality Protection Lands are now
comparable in size to “Central Austin”, the area bound by
U.S. 183 on the north, Ben White on the south, IH-35 on
the east, and MoPac on the west.
Figure 1. (Right) Onion Creek flowing across the Searcy property, acquired as
part of the WQPL in 2014.
Figure 2. (Below) WQPL now protects 28,309 acres and more than 24.5 percent
of the recharge zone for Barton Springs
20
State of Our Environment Report 2014
Air Quality
Importance
The primary air quality concern in Austin is ground-level
ozone. High ozone levels in Central Texas historically occur
most frequently between August and September and between May and June. Elevated ozone levels can have a
significant impact on human health. Many individuals experience increased respiratory ailments, with children,
the elderly, and those with lung disease, such as asthma
sufferers, being especially susceptible. In fact, 1 in 10 children and 1 in 13 adults in Central Texas suffer from asthma,
which leads to lost school and work days.
Goals
The City’s goal is to promote healthy outdoor air quality for
all citizens. The City of Austin Air Quality Program addresses the impact of City operations on air quality. The program
also participates in regional efforts to improve air quality
throughout Central Texas.
Figure 1. “Where Does Ground-Level Ozone Come From?” graphic provided by Ozone Action Heroes (ozoneactionheroes.com), a part of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO).
21
Imagine Austin
Vision
•Public and private sectors work together to improve our
air quality and reduce congestion in a collaborative and
creative manner.
Policies
•Improve the air quality and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from motor vehicle use, traffic and
congestion, industrial sources, and waste.
•Reduce traffic congestion, increase transit use, and encourage alternative transportation modes through such
practices as Transportation Demand Management which
includes carpooling, flex time work schedules and subsidizing transit costs for employees.
Priority Action
•Maintain a safe and reliable energy system and improve
Austin’s air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions
through continued review and adoption of alternative
fuel sources and energy storage technologies.
Challenges and Responses
The Austin region ended the 2014 ozone season in attainment
of the existing ozone standard, with an ozone design value of
69 parts per billion (ppb). Attainment status is a determination of whether the region is in compliance (in attainment) or
out of compliance (in nonattainment) with the 2008 federal
health-based ozone standard of 75 ppb. The design value is a
22
statistic that reflects the region’s average ozone level. When
determining the region’s attainment status, the design value
is compared against the federal health-based ozone standard.
Figure 2 shows the Austin-Round Rock region’s continued
success in reducing ozone levels during 2014.
While the continued downward trend in the region’s design
value is impressive, efforts to improve Austin’s air quality
must continue. It is expected that the federal health-based
ozone standard of 75 ppb may be reduced in the future to 70
ppb or less, which may put the region in nonattainment with
the new federal ozone standard.
Ongoing
Central Texas has a history of participation in proactive
air quality initiatives with regional partners. The City of
Austin will continue to support regional partners in reducing ozone-forming emissions; review and comment on
new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ozone
standards; and evaluate existing and new measures to improve air quality. As our region’s population continues to
grow, air quality issues will become increasingly important.
The development of regional public awareness and education campaigns to encourage voluntary action to improve
air quality is critical. Recognizing the regional nature of air
quality, the City is taking an active role in several area initiatives, including:
•Clean Air Coalition, www.capcog.org/divisions/
regional-services/clean-air-coalition
•Movability Austin, www.movabilityaustin.org
•Commute Solutions, www.commutesolutions.com
•Clean Air Force of Central Texas
Figure 2. Ozone Design Value Trend for 2000 – 2014, provided by the Capital Area Council of Governments
Figure 3. Number of days with
unhealthy 8-Hour Ozone Levels
in Austin-Round Rock MSA, provided by the Capital Area Council
of Governments.
This Year
The Air Quality Program is committed to educating the City’s
employees and residents about the ozone problem and providing them with information that can help improve the air
quality of our city. Specifically, Air Quality staff participated
on the Clean Air Coalition Advisory Committee’s Outreach
and Education Sub-Committee, which engages regional
partners to leverage resources in delivery of consistent Air
Quality messaging throughout Austin and surrounding communities. Additionally, Air Quality staff participated in the
Business Outreach Group led by the Office of Sustainability.
The Business Outreach Group focuses its efforts on reaching Austin employers with information about how they can
improve their operations through environmental initiatives,
such as high-efficiency lighting and water usage, better recycling practices, and educating employees on alternative
ways to commute to work. Air Quality staff also completed
community outreach throughout the year by distributing information and providing presentations at community events.
Status and Trends
Average ozone levels in the Austin area have been decreasing
for more than a decade. The downward trend is almost certainly caused by cleaner emission sources both in Austin and
in upwind areas, such as cars and trucks that are equipped
with improved emission control systems. The region-wide
inspection and maintenance program has also contributed
to the reduction of ozone by ensuring that local vehicles are
maintained. In 2014, the region experienced a milder than
normal summer which contributed to a decrease in Ozone
Action Days. Figure 3 provides a comparison with previous
years. For the 10th year in a row there were no days designated as unhealthy for all groups. There were no days in 2014
that were unhealthy for sensitive groups. Days with moderate ozone readings totaled 27, which is the lowest number of
moderate days ever recorded.
Annual Focus
Since 2002, Austin has been an active member of the Central
Texas Clean Air Coalition. In 2014 the Clean Air Coalition was
awarded the Clean Air Excellence Award for the implementation of the 8-Hour Ozone Flex Plan that expired on December
31, 2013. On January 1, 2014, the Clean Air Coalition entered
into its fourth voluntary plan with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under the Ozone Advance Program. Ozone
Advance is a collaborative, voluntary effort between the EPA,
states, tribes, and local governments to encourage reductions
of ground-level ozone, including the ozone precursor emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds.
Through this voluntary effort Ozone Advance is expected to
help areas remain in attainment with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. The City of Austin has committed to complete more than 30 air emission reduction measures in the
plan. Taking voluntary actions now to reduce ozone and precursor emissions through the Ozone Advance Plan is expected
to benefit public health while minimizing the region’s regulatory burden. The plan also provides the City with the opportunity
to maximize ozone reductions while reaping the additional
benefits of reduced carbon emissions, cleaner fleets, and less
traffic congestion. This plan will continue through 2018 and
will ensure that the City of Austin remains a leader in efforts to
improve air quality in Central Texas. More information about
the region’s Ozone Advance Plan can be found on the CAPCOG
website.the CAPCOG website: www.capcog.org/divisions/
regional-services/ozone-advance/
23
100% Recycled
2014